Is ulceration in cutaneous melanoma just a prognostic and predictive factor or is ulcerated melanoma a distinct biologic entity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ulceration of a primary cutaneous melanoma has for many years been recognized as a very important prognostic factor associated with increased risk for recurrence and mortality. Patients with an ulcerated melanoma do much worse than patients with a nonulcerated melanoma with the same breslow thickness. Ulceration may indicate a separate biologic entity. RECENT FINDINGS: Gene profiling studies of fresh frozen melanoma samples indicated that ulcerated melanomas have a very different profile. Analysis of the results of the two largest adjuvant interferon (IFN) trials ever conducted in 2644 patients [European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18952 and 18991], which used ulceration of the primary as a stratification factor, indicated that ulceration was not only a very strong prognostic factor, but more importantly a significant predictive factor for outcome of adjuvant IFN treatment. Only in patients with an ulcerated primary, was a similar and significant impact on disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival observed. As a more general finding, in trials independent of ulceration used as a stratification factor, this IFN sensitivity of ulcerated melanomas has been reported in a meta-analysis in more than 3000 patients. It was also identified as a predictive factor of outcome in the Sunbelt adjuvant IFN trial in the USA. SUMMARY: These important findings regarding ulceration need biologic studies to identify the differences between ulcerated and nonulcerated melanoma at the molecular level. Moreover, the importance of ulceration will be assessed prospectively in the EORTC 18081 trial in patients with primary ulcerated melanomas more than 1 mm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".